Carbon dating and shroud of turin

But then a pair of amateur detectives/scientists named Joe Marino and Sue Bedford published a peer-reviewed research paper suggesting that the carbon dating test results for the Shroud of Turin were incorrect — not because the tests were flawed, but because the sample itself was flawed.Bedford and Marino claimed that the sample that was carbon-dated came from a section of the shroud that had been expertly repaired to be undetectable by the naked eye.Tests and analysis eliminated any possibility the image on the fabric had been painted.One test indicated that a copious amount of human blood had saturated the fabric after oozing from the gruesome wounds on the head and torso of the body that the shroud had covered.Instead, Rogers found powerful evidence suggesting Benford and Marino had been absolutely correct in saying the material for the original carbon dating tests had been taken from a contaminated section of the shroud, identifying cotton fibers in the sample not found in the rest of the shroud.He proposed testing the scorch marks on the shroud for more accurate carbon dating.

I can’t say that I find fault with the Shroud’s critics, because I’ve seen the same evidence.The plant DNA came from all over the world, the researchers reported Oct. European spruce trees; Mediterranean clovers, ryegrasses and plantains; North American black locust trees; and rare East Asian pear and plum trees all left their mark on the cloth.The team also sequenced the human mitochondrial DNA (DNA passed from mother to child) found in dust from the shroud.And now we even know that the shroud could have been in Jerusalem in 33 AD.Here’s what we should acknowledge that cannot ever be proved: The shroud temporarily covered the mortal remains of Jesus the Christ while He was in the tomb prior to His resurrection.

Leave a Reply